Vista vs XP

  amonra 18:29 11 Jan 08
Locked

click here
Click this to see why British schools should save money. It's scandalous that cash-strapped schools are held to ransom by Bill Gates.

  GANDALF <|:-)> 18:39 11 Jan 08

So schools should be given anything they want for free then? This is a wake up call from the real world. I'm sure that of you owned a business with employees and R&D, that you would be donating all sorts of things to schools.

G

  PP321 18:43 11 Jan 08

The same happend with Win98 > WinXP it'll peter out, they'll come to a deal and all this will be forgotten, again.

  cream. 18:44 11 Jan 08

Bill Gates has spent countless Billions in bring the newest operating system, surely he's entitled to reclaim some of the money.The sum involved is just a third of the total amount. One more third possibly on upgrading the hardware of the systems.

No doubt the Dept of Education or the goverment has a large user licence to load vista onto a large quantity of computers. Just like the manufacturers buy an OEM quota for their computers.

In my view it is not worth upgrading an XP machine to Vista. The schools would be better off waiting for natural wastage of the computers. Till they get past their life span and then make the jump to vista with new machines.

  anskyber 19:20 11 Jan 08

I think you have completely missed the point of the article.

In effect it is saying that moving to Vista should be part of the normal cycle of hardware replacement when the new machines will come with Vista. In addition some older machines may also need hardware updating ( like graphics cards) to run some versions of Vista. Frankly the advice makes eminent sense.

Your comment that " It's scandalous that cash-strapped schools are held to ransom by Bill Gates." is so wide of the mark it is almost comical.

  PalaeoBill 21:24 11 Jan 08

Educational establishments get a much better deal on software upgrades and they may have been considering spending some of their IT budget on Vista and Office 2007. BECTA are merely pointing out that they can see no real benefit for the additional cost and that upgrading to Vista on older PC's may well regure additional expense in hardware upgrades also. I think BECTA were as much if not more concerned about schools spending money on Office 2007 upgrades as thet were at XP to Vista upgrades.

I'm with anskyber, it makes eminent sense to me as well.

  interzone55 21:28 11 Jan 08

"Your comment that " It's scandalous that cash-strapped schools are held to ransom by Bill Gates." is so wide of the mark it is almost comical."

Perhaps you should look into the Microsoft School Licencing. Here's an excerpt-
"If a school is using some Apple computers that are not running any Microsoft software they must still pay Microsoft annual licence fees for those computers, even thought they are running software supplied by Microsoft's competitor."

Yes you even have to pay MS for computers running Linux & MacOS - I would say that's a scandal

  anskyber 21:50 11 Jan 08

You have raised a different point.

My comment relates to the issue of upgrading existing equipment which was the subject of the report which is linked to this thread. amonra reached his conclusion from the essence of the report which I think is not a reasonable conclusion about the issue he raised.

On your different point, it's for those who procure IT kit in schools to decide if other systems are more cost effective. Perhaps schools should move to Apple or other if it is more cost effective, I agree.

  interzone55 22:08 11 Jan 08

The Becta report suggests that schools should not upgrade to Vista unless they are buying a whole new system. Any new, additional, kit should have XP installed.

They also say that schools should avoid Office 2007, and look at free alternatives, a) for cost & b) for interoperability reasons, as Office 2007 native document format is not fully supported by Office 2003 , even with the patch, and Office 2003 macros do not always work with Office 2007 (or Open Office, but they don't seem to have noticed that).

You state "On your different point, it's for those who procure IT kit in schools to decide if other systems are more cost effective. Perhaps schools should move to Apple or other if it is more cost effective, I agree."

My point in the previous post was that if you have the annual MS Windows education licence, you pay MS for each PC on site, regardless of whether it is running Windows or not, this means that it is not cost effective for a school to run alternative operating systems, because they still have to pay the MS tax.

  anskyber 22:24 11 Jan 08

I think this is a classic misreading by both of us.

I certainly agree that any new kit bought on a piecemeal basis would need to be XP, on the basis of the BECTA advice. "Schools might consider using Vista if rolling out all-new infrastructure," is what they say and I think it's fine too.

I do see your point, but unless you tell me I'm wrong here (I could be!) if a decision is made to "roll out all-new Infrastructure" then the MS licence would not be needed for say Apple replacements.

I read the amonra comment about cash strapped schools as a response to the advice not to upgrade (existing) kit to Vista. If I am making sense.

  Forum Editor 00:00 12 Jan 08

an American software company it might be more appropriate to slam the British public, who are ultimately responsible for the schools being 'cash-strapped' in the first place.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Intel Coffee Lake 8th-gen Core processors release date rumours

1995-2015: How technology has changed the world in 20 years

Framestore’s haunting post-WWII title sequence for new BBC series SS-GB

How to install MacOS Sierra on an older Mac: Get Sierra running on Macs & MacBooks from before 2009